[dpdk-dev,24/29] net/ixgbe/base: add EEE support for DNL-controlled PHYs

  This patch adds EEE support for DNL-controlled PHYs. Because DNL
does not indicate EEE capability or status, this patch simply
assumes that it is supported. As soon as there is a DNL-supported
PHY that does not support EEE, there will be defects in this area
because the driver will not report the EEE status correctly.
This also deletes some now-unused definitions from an earlier
Marvell PHY implementation and combines a device ID check into a
switch statement.

Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
---
 drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h |  8 --------
 drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | 15 +++++++--------
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
  

On 12/4/2016 6:31 AM, Wei Dai wrote:
> This patch adds EEE support for DNL-controlled PHYs. Because DNL

What is DNL?

> does not indicate EEE capability or status, this patch simply
> assumes that it is supported. As soon as there is a DNL-supported
> PHY that does not support EEE, there will be defects in this area
> because the driver will not report the EEE status correctly.
> This also deletes some now-unused definitions from an earlier
> Marvell PHY implementation and combines a device ID check into a
> switch statement.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h |  8 --------
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | 15 +++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> index 9ec17a9..f1761a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> @@ -3720,14 +3720,6 @@ enum ixgbe_fc_mode {
>  	ixgbe_fc_default
>  };
>  
> -/* Master/slave control */
> -enum ixgbe_ms_type {
> -	ixgbe_ms_hw_default = 0,
> -	ixgbe_ms_force_master,
> -	ixgbe_ms_force_slave,
> -	ixgbe_ms_auto
> -};
> -

This seems not related to this patchset, also patch 15/29 has [1] again
seems unrelated to that patch, does it make sense to make these a
separate patch?

[1]
"
@@ -4046,8 +4112,8 @@ struct ixgbe_phy_info {
 	bool reset_disable;
 	ixgbe_autoneg_advertised autoneg_advertised;
 	ixgbe_link_speed speeds_supported;
-	enum ixgbe_ms_type ms_type;
-	enum ixgbe_ms_type original_ms_type;
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:41 AM
> To: Dai, Wei <wei.dai@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 24/29] net/ixgbe/base: add EEE support for
> DNL-controlled PHYs
> 
> On 12/4/2016 6:31 AM, Wei Dai wrote:
> > This patch adds EEE support for DNL-controlled PHYs. Because DNL
> 
> What is DNL?
DNL is short for name of some method to control Marvel PHY.
This git log message will be revised in v2 patch set.

> 
> > does not indicate EEE capability or status, this patch simply assumes
> > that it is supported. As soon as there is a DNL-supported PHY that
> > does not support EEE, there will be defects in this area because the
> > driver will not report the EEE status correctly.
> > This also deletes some now-unused definitions from an earlier Marvell
> > PHY implementation and combines a device ID check into a switch
> > statement.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h |  8 --------
> > drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | 15 +++++++--------
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> > index 9ec17a9..f1761a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h
> > @@ -3720,14 +3720,6 @@ enum ixgbe_fc_mode {
> >  	ixgbe_fc_default
> >  };
> >
> > -/* Master/slave control */
> > -enum ixgbe_ms_type {
> > -	ixgbe_ms_hw_default = 0,
> > -	ixgbe_ms_force_master,
> > -	ixgbe_ms_force_slave,
> > -	ixgbe_ms_auto
> > -};
> > -
> 
> This seems not related to this patchset, also patch 15/29 has [1] again seems
> unrelated to that patch, does it make sense to make these a separate patch?
Yes, in v2 patch set, removing of above enum type will be in a separate one. 

> 
> [1]
> "
> @@ -4046,8 +4112,8 @@ struct ixgbe_phy_info {
>  	bool reset_disable;
>  	ixgbe_autoneg_advertised autoneg_advertised;
>  	ixgbe_link_speed speeds_supported;
> -	enum ixgbe_ms_type ms_type;
> -	enum ixgbe_ms_type original_ms_type;
> 
>